36 to the victims’ next of kin, and has pressured the judiciary in the course of the proceedings. They claimed that all of this means that the events in this case have gone unpunished. In relation to the military jurisdiction, they claim that it is not the appropriate venue to investigate the events, since the independence and impartiality of the military court is compromised. They added that the Supreme Court ruled incorrectly when it remanded the investigation of the events to the military jurisdiction. 165. In the petitioners’ view, moreover, the State did not provide an effective remedy to the victims and their next of kin. They added that interference by the military justice system, which impeded the civilian jurisdiction from investigating, prosecuting and punishing the soldiers, constitutes a serious violation of judicial protection and due process guarantees. They added that the military personnel who were absolved by the military courts are not being investigated by the civilian authorities due to an erroneous invocation of the principle of res judicata and the guarantee of non bis in idem. 166. For its part, the State claimed that its alleged international liability is based on statements and expert reports, which must be examined in a trial, which is the appropriate venue to determine whether the deaths were, in effect, extrajudicial executions. It also contended that the events were tried in the military jurisdiction for the following reasons: (i) the accused were active duty officers; (ii) they acted in the discharge of their assigned duties in a military operation; (iii) the legally protected interest was “discipline and the protection of life, the supreme aim of the State;” (iv) the acts were defined in the Code of Military Justice and were the result of a battle between commandos and a terrorist group; and (v) they acted in a zone declared to be in a “state of emergency.” 167. The State also asserted that the criminal proceeding in progress is being conducted in accordance with the procedural guidelines established by law and has not been abandoned or dismissed. In regard to the reasonable time period, it explained that there is no procedural regulation in force that calculates an exact time frame from the beginning to the end of an oral trial. 168. First of all, the IACHR wishes to reiterate that while it is qualified to determine the international liability of the State and the legal consequences derived therefrom, it does not have the power to investigate and punish the individual conduct of the state agents who were allegedly involved in 173 the violations. The Commission recalls that according to the jurisprudence of the Court: [T]he aim of International Human Rights Law is to provide the individual with means of protection of internationally recognized human rights vis-à-vis the State. Under international jurisdiction, the parties and the subject matter of the controversy are, by definition, different than under domestic 174 jurisdiction. 169. Therefore, in relation to the State’s claim that the facts of the instant case should be tried in a domestic legal proceeding, “as the appropriate venue for determining whether the deaths were, in effect, extrajudicial executions,” the IAHCR recalls that: [I]n order to clarify whether the State has violated its international obligations owing to the acts of its judicial organs, [the Commission and the Court] may have to examine the respective domestic proceedings. In light of the above, the domestic proceedings must be considered as a whole, and 173 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 73; and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al) v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 11, 1997. Series C No. 32, para. 223. 174 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R.. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 73; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 163; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 154; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 168; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 109; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 210; and Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al) v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 220.